Why are they no new Iconic characters at Marvel?(or in comics)

[Killerbee911]

Hmm. I think you are confusing "Iconic" with "popular". Some of those characters are popular and over time may become very popular (I like some of them myself) but Iconic is a completely different beast and I will confidently predict that none of them will ever be iconic.

Think of how many comics characters have been created in the past 50 years and now think of how many characters are genuinely iconic. The % is miniscule, and that's because iconic is very rare to achieve. It isnt something that happens to a new bunch of characters once the "old guard" moves on, it isnt somethingf that periodically happens. It takes a very difficult to achieve set of circumstances.

Nope I am not confusing Iconic with popular, Go ahead name me an Iconic character that hasn't had a period of crazy mass popularity. Longevity doesn't come without popularity either. The most important component of being Iconic is popularity. Now popularity doesn't mean that you become Iconic but popularity(followed by longevity) easiest tangible measure stick for us to understand who is iconic. The harder thing to figure out is when character moves from popular to integrated in the culture and history of era. That is the subjective thing that people won't agree with it.

Tries to argue against this feels silly to me, How did Superman,Batman and Spiderman become Iconic well they had long periods of popularity where their shows, movies, comics were popular allowing the masses to know about them and they become integrated into culture then Iconic. So how do new characters become Iconic ..derp derp derp... they have long periods of popularity where their shows, movies, comics were popular allowing the masses to know about them and they become integrated into culture then Iconic. Literally the Avengers are doing what Batman and Superman did in their time, Avengers are ingrained into culture and unlike Batman and Superman they are doing it in the era of the internet so worldwide these characters are relevant to much larger base of people because technology is cheaper. Characters have short windows of mass popularity but larger initial impact and access to people. If I said the Avengers movie characters are all Iconic now I would be meet with no by a lot of people when reality is different.

I will confidently predict that none of them will ever be iconic.

That is old school ego, Is Fortnite Iconic? The reason I mention it because yeah it is,it is basically the super mario of current gen. Fortnite was release in 2017. Fortnite is Iconic because they are generation of people who thoughts matter in what is Iconic. GenXers and Boomers can all die tomorrow and they are billions of people still around. People are still running around like Superman is still the ultimate iconic thing and more kids probably recognize and find more relevance in Spongebob, Rick and Morty and Adventure time. So no I don't agree extreme popularity in this era can lead to Iconic status and the push of some of these characters in this era in media can lead to Iconic status. Anyways we will never get solid concrete agreement on what is Iconic because their level of subjectiveness to it we can all agree that Batman,Spiderman,Superman are Iconic but Wonder Woman is also consider Iconic and she doesn't fit in the same way as those characters but they are characters like Wolverine,Hulk,(and Deadpool) who have the similar metrics of those other characters and some people wouldn't consider them "Iconic".

[Force de Phenix]

Nope I am not confusing Iconic with popular, Go ahead name me an Iconic character that hasn't had a period of crazy mass popularity. Longevity doesn't come without popularity either. The most important component of being Iconic is popularity. Now popularity doesn't mean that you become Iconic but popularity(followed by longevity) easiest tangible measure stick for us to understand who is iconic. The harder thing to figure out is when character moves from popular to integrated in the culture and history of era. That is the subjective thing that people won't agree with it.

Tries to argue against this feels silly to me, How did Superman,Batman and Spiderman become Iconic well they had long periods of popularity where their shows, movies, comics were popular allowing the masses to know about them and they become integrated into culture then Iconic. So how do new characters become Iconic ..derp derp derp... they have long periods of popularity where their shows, movies, comics were popular allowing the masses to know about them and they become integrated into culture then Iconic. Literally the Avengers are doing what Batman and Superman did in their time, Avengers are ingrained into culture and unlike Batman and Superman they are doing it in the era of the internet so worldwide these characters are relevant to much larger base of people because technology is cheaper. Characters have short windows of mass popularity but larger initial impact and access to people. If I said the Avengers movie characters are all Iconic now I would be meet with no by a lot of people when reality is different.



That is old school ego, Is Fortnite Iconic? The reason I mention it because yeah it is,it is basically the super mario of current gen. Fortnite was release in 2017. Fortnite is Iconic because they are generation of people who thoughts matter in what is Iconic. GenXers and Boomers can all die tomorrow and they are billions of people still around. People are still running around like Superman is still the ultimate iconic thing and more kids probably recognize and find more relevance in Spongebob, Rick and Morty and Adventure time. So no I don't agree extreme popularity in this era can lead to Iconic status and the push of some of these characters in this era in media can lead to Iconic status. Anyways we will never get solid concrete agreement on what is Iconic because their level of subjectiveness to it we can all agree that Batman,Spiderman,Superman are Iconic but Wonder Woman is also consider Iconic and she doesn't fit in the same way as those characters but they are characters like Wolverine,Hulk,(and Deadpool) who have the similar metrics of those other characters and some people wouldn't consider them "Iconic".

Marvel's put all their eggs in the media (non-comic) basket because as you said, we live in the age of internet. They are trying to succeed as a brand, so they are steering away from having only one iconic character like DC was doing, which can be seen as a con or a pro since one will last forever. Marvel has Spider-Man, but with the success of Captain Marvel and Black Panther at the box office, they learned that they have to change things up and not stay stuck with a "trinity". They'll push the eternals because it's silly and cynical to think that one character has to represent the whole brand.

This comes from the fact that they don't own the film rights to Spider-Man, and didn't of the Fantastic Four and X-Men. They basically created a team of iconic characters that blew any other team before them out of the water (i.e. Justice League and X-Men)

So having an iconic character isn't important when you can have an iconic franchise and company.

[Force de Phenix]

X-23 is the last breakout X-Men character made (IMHO), although it does seem like Marvel hasn't capitalized on her as well as it could've.

They did, but no new X-Men character will EVER be above the 90's X-Men (Wolverine, Storm, Jean, Cyclops, etc.) It would be a fool's errand to try to push them out of the way with any new mutant. That's why Hickman's books doesn't introduce any new, worthwhile ones. He knows better.

[Gurz]

Because no writter and artist want to give their good $$$$$ ideas to marvel or dc to capitalise on and use as they wish for infinite years to make crap tone of money. No the writter and artists want to do that themselves... lol

[Skullkid]

They did, but no new X-Men character will EVER be above the 90's X-Men (Wolverine, Storm, Jean, Cyclops, etc.) It would be a fool's errand to try to push them out of the way with any new mutant. That's why Hickman's books doesn't introduce any new, worthwhile ones. He knows better.

Why do they need to be pushed out though?
There's no reason they can't make a new character and promote them without coming at the expense of someone else.
Where is this logic coming from that you need to get rid of older characters when you introduce new ones?
Marvel the exact sort of thing people didn't like about ANAD, and characters like Iron Heart and Jane Foster.

[Triniking1234]

Fortnite was a horrible idea of being an icon. It was some micro-transaction mess that Epic Games released in 2014/2015 and only became popular because they stole from two other popular games: Minecraft and Player Unknown Battlegrounds.

[Force de Phenix]

Why do they need to be pushed out though?
There's no reason they can't make a new character and promote them without coming at the expense of someone else.
Where is this logic coming from that you need to get rid of older characters when you introduce new ones?
Marvel the exact sort of thing people didn't like about ANAD, and characters like Iron Heart and Jane Foster.

Everyone knew Thor Odinson was returning and her name was Ironheart, not Iron Man. So he never lent his name. We're talking about new monikers, not refreshed ones.

The X-Men are all in team books, so you'd have push some out of the way like what they did to Jean.

[hulkling]

Why do they need to be pushed out though?
There's no reason they can't make a new character and promote them without coming at the expense of someone else.
Where is this logic coming from that you need to get rid of older characters when you introduce new ones?
Marvel the exact sort of thing people didn't like about ANAD, and characters like Iron Heart and Jane Foster.

People hate them so much that Jane is going to have her own movie and has her own title after the Aaron Era.

[Killerbee911]

Fortnite was a horrible idea of being an icon. It was some micro-transaction mess that Epic Games released in 2014/2015 and only became popular because they stole from two other popular games: Minecraft and Player Unknown Battlegrounds.

It doesn't matter It became the standard for genre and crossover into popular culture to point that people who have never seen or touch game know about it in detailed ways. Deadpool is ripoff of Wolverine,Spiderman and Deathstroke but combination when refined after by other creators became something amazing. Sometimes you don't have be original sometimes you just have to fine tune idea to perfection. Batman was inspired by the Shadow and the Phantom guess who won out.

PS- Deathmatch,Battleground Arena format,Auto chess, Mobas ,Good ideas get "stolen" become genres

[WebLurker]

They did, but no new X-Men character will EVER be above the 90's X-Men (Wolverine, Storm, Jean, Cyclops, etc.) It would be a fool's errand to try to push them out of the way with any new mutant. That's why Hickman's books doesn't introduce any new, worthwhile ones. He knows better.

Wolverine was a later edition to the franchise (and borrowed from the Hulk comics to boot), as were a lot of the franchise's superstars. With that in mind, I think it's foolish to say that Marvel will never create a character that will top any of the established classic ones. It may be hard to make one that would do so (and Marvel may not have the motivation to try, if that makes any sense), but it has happened before, and I think it will happen again down the line, whether it be a preexisting character rising in popularity or a new one catching on in a big way.

(Guess it also may depend on readers wanting the same thing; I like some X-Men comics, but don't really care much about the '90s ones. While I am a minority there, if enough paying readers shifted to similar positions, that would probably affect the publishing decisions.)

[Force de Phenix]

Wolverine was a later edition to the franchise (and borrowed from the Hulk comics to boot), as were a lot of the franchise's superstars. With that in mind, I think it's foolish to say that Marvel will never create a character that will top any of the established classic ones. It may be hard to make one that would do so (and Marvel may not have the motivation to try, if that makes any sense), but it has happened before, and I think it will happen again down the line, whether it be a preexisting character rising in popularity or a new one catching on in a big way.

(Guess it also may depend on readers wanting the same thing; I like some X-Men comics, but don't really care much about the '90s ones. While I am a minority there, if enough paying readers shifted to similar positions, that would probably affect the publishing decisions.)

We'll see if they create any new ones that can reach that level of popularity, but it's not a popularity contest and Marvel wants to sell its whole brand, not just one character.

[MadFacedKid]

I’d argue Goku is pretty iconic worldwide at this point

[kilderkin]

Everyone knew Thor Odinson was returning and her name was Ironheart, not Iron Man. So he never lent his name. We're talking about new monikers, not refreshed ones.

The X-Men are all in team books, so you'd have push some out of the way like what they did to Jean.

I'm still waiting for Thor to return, still ain't here yet

Maybe the new creative will fix that

[Skullkid]

People hate them so much that Jane is going to have her own movie and has her own title after the Aaron Era.

Jane isn't getting her her own movie, she's getting featured in Thor's movie, not the same thing.
And she still has her own comic because Marvel wants to push her it's that simple

[JudicatorPrime]

Because no writer [sic] and artist want to give their good $$$$$ ideas to marvel or dc to capitalise on and use as they wish for infinite years to make crap tone of money. No the writer [sic] and artists want to do that themselves... lol

A creator with sufficient industry clout could negotiate a deal where they receive royalties, I imagine. But you're right that most aren't in a position to do that. So they do the next best thing, which is build up a name for themselves using Marvel's and/or DC's existing content until they have a sufficient fan following to do their own thing. Most writers and artists aren't really all that successful going it alone, but one good graphic novel with your own story and creations can make you quite successful, especially if Hollywood picks it up and churns out movie adaptations based on your book/graphic novel.

All that said, if the choice was mine, I'd create an original character for Marvel in a heartbeat. But that's the fan in me talking, not the businessman.